InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

Raffis

06/09/20 5:10 PM

#85434 RE: cvinvestor #85423

They don’t need the working prototype to claim it works, so long as the development is progressing with the parameters determined through the testing phase - - pay very close attention - - that was determined to work on the H5N1 Virus. Be very open minded here, now. If the initial test did detect the H5N1 Virus, and functioned as specified, then the configuration could be modified and adjusted to detect COVID-19, because it can be modified with the correct configuration, as for H5N1. I am not saying they are the same configurations. I am saying that the configurations can be modified. As long as you can determine that the configuration can be made for the intended purpose, without the finished product, the plans to produce it would suffice, as this is the “Development phase,” that the PRE-EUA also allows, prior to complete submission. Believe me when I say they have it and it works. THOUGH BERMAN CAN GET AHAEAD OF HIMSELF, EXCITED AND ALL, He is also very smart to keep the ends open for interpretation because his plans point to the device in development to produce the unit with the correct configuration implemented to measure the impedance for COVID-19. If you think it’s easy to determine the impedance limits through trial, error and elimination, then you do not understand the scientific process of perfecting the device. You must understand that the point where impedance begins is the difference of the entire applied current and the point where impedance ends is the fingerprint, specific to COVID-19. How much of the current is resisted must be measured and configured from max-capacitance, to start of impedance to end of impedance. Then you can determine the exact current based on those parameters and build the device. This is where they are, right now. And they are going to complete it, because the process of elimination dictates those parameters.
icon url

loanranger

06/09/20 6:37 PM

#85448 RE: cvinvestor #85423

"Now, I would be interested in actual proof that the company never had a working prototype, never tested the proto-type against COVID-19 blood samples in Daegu, etc."

Do you accept the SEC's representation that Berman "stated or suggested in interviews with staff" that as of April 13 he:
•knew that the company had no COVID-19 test kits;
•had not seen any of DECN’s prototype COVID-19 test kits;
•knew that the COVID-19 test kits would require component parts that were different from DECN’s current diabetes products, which the company did not yet have and would need before any sales could be made;
?

What would you consider "actual proof" that the company never had a working prototype?